Take it easy on the "College" analogy, you make it sound like a bad thing. (You must remember, CmdrTaco is about 23 years old.) (Or, just graduated from College)
Besides, I think it's kind of refreshing, and very "nerdy" (in a good way). It reminds me of my College days.
*Falls back into the nostagia for a few more minutes.* *Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
You would think that this was SOMEWHAT known to ALL the Space Fairing Heroes. Just like an actor gets ready for stage, and test pilots get ready for flight, these men and women attempt to understand that they might not come home that day.
I would imagine that there is MORE of this going on then the BBC article suggests, especially the high profiles stuff like "first American in Space", "First American in Orbit", "First Man on the Moon", "First Manned Mission to Mars", and eventually "First Manned Mission out of the gravitational dominance of the Sun."
And believe me, those brave souls MUST be thinking, or even knowing, that they might not come back. *Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
Roddenberry was a genuis when he put the triumverate of Kirk, Spock and McCoy on the screen, the art of three peices of the human Psyche was made manifest in these three characters.
The Id: Kirk, the impatient, action-oriented captain, with needs wants and desires, often pulsated buy a child-like drive. He was a doer, thinking was the last option. But, like the rest of the society, it's the do-ers that get the job done.
The Super-Ego: Spock, the logical, rational, thinker, slow to act, cautious to interceede, and always ready to step back and observe the situation rationally, and clearly, without the distraction of a need to act prematurely.
And the Ego: McCoy, the character of conflict, always at some sort of odds with Kirk and Spock, making the two of them more like the other. McCoy would always try and help Kirk grow up, challenging him to think and react responsibly, and he always attempted to convince Spock to act more human and take chances.
It's sad to see part of that team pass on. In a sense, it's like having part of ourselves die. Those of us who have watched all the episodes over and over, and see the spectrum of personalitites in these three characters, it aches us to see that a key part is gone.
And who said that syndication is a bad thing?
Thanks for the memories DeForest. You will no be forgotton, You will be missed.
Since this is not the format for a two way discussion, I will leave this short. There is full documentation on University of Arizona letter head from both the Department of Astronomy, and the University Proper. I would not state these things if I did not know those documents existed.
Whether you, the reader, believe me or not, is another story. *Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
This might be off topic, if it is, I humbly appologise.
There is another huge cover-up in the Astrophysics Community. And it's story begins in the Mid 1970s.
Most of you have probably heard of Dark Matter, it's matter that cannot be seen, and has not been observed under any sort of scientific conditions, and you have heard of The Big Bang, (or a derivative of that thoery) where the Universe is a by product of a energy to matter reaction.
In the 1970s an Astronomer nammed William Tifft, studied the Extragalactic Geography of the numerous galaxies that can be seen in the Northern Hemisphere. His team found something very unusual: The Galaxies "Clustered" in an object called "the Great Wall" which was previously thought to be the Heculies and Coma Superclusters. This Great Wall is so amazingly huge that Modern Gravitational Thoery cannot explain it, because even over the extent of over 18 billion years, an object of this magnitude cannot have this form and structure. (Outside of thise wall, there is void in both the foreground and background). Science explains this with the use of Dark Matter (saying that the Universe consists of over 99% Dark Matter. Another view is that we do not really know how Gravity works. For that I refer you to the June 1996 Issue of Discover where the article talks about how hard it is to determine, and reproduce, "Big G" the Gravitational Constant behind Newtons Law of Gravitation.
It was later discovered in 1990, by David Moo and Kitt Peak National Observatory, that this Great Wall was only one of several "walls" that surround us, each wall is the same thickness, the same desnity of individual galaxies, and the same seperation from the other walls surrounding it. Otherwise, this is a VERY PERIODIC structure, and cannot be explained by something as chaotic as a Big Bang.
Tifft also is a trail blazer in the dispute of the age of the universe and high velocity redshift in the determination of deep extragalactic observations. Not only that, he and his colleages have the experimental data to back up what they say.
The Astrophysical Journals, the most heralded Astronomy publication in the world, has put up an incredible fight to keep Tifft's papers from being published. And they could not dispute his findings (which is the only way to refuse to publicise a scientific paper) even though they reviewd each 13 times. But the ApJ wrote a very convenient disclaimer at the begining of the individual papers saying that they do not agree with the opinions of the author and that his results should be taken with a grain of salt. (Even though the paper was scientifically proven.)
Tifft is now a Professor of Astronomy at the University of Arizona, And the UNIVERSITY has silenced him from teaching these ideas in his Extragalactic Astronomy Course.
The question that arises is, WHY? Is not science an open minded insitution, eager to learn the truth of the universe around us?
Or is there another more commercial motive? I suspect that there has been much investment of capital into the Big Bang Theory and Dark Matter theory, and in order to protect the continuation of that funding, certain ideas need to be put on the back burner.
I feel this is wrong. And just like the Cold Fusion debate, I am sceptical of what Science Community believes is the truth, and what they believe is convenient for themselves. *Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
DEFAMATION, n. The uttering of slanderous words with a view to injure anothers reputation; the malicious uttering of falsehood respecting another which tends to destroy or impair his good name, character or occupation; slander; calumny. To constitute defamation in law, the words must be false and spoken maliciously. Defamatory words written and published are called a libel.
I scanned the articles, but I could not find the actual cause or the reason that Demon is moving in this way. In my opinion, Demon has the right to do this, reguardless of free speech, this is "technically" their private property, they call the shots. (I Don't agree that they should be acting in this way. What confuses me, is the question of "What prompted this fiasco?" I mean, defamation is defamation, it's only words, and usually does not have that much impact, and can be easily ignored, or subverted in a civilized vintage of retaliation. Can anyone help me understand this issue better? It has made me curious.
Otherwise, it's an issue of "which is more important?" The rights of the users to be able to say what they want, and how they want to say it. Or the rights of the institution, to be able to control what happens in their insitutions, as to not be held in a compromising position, as well as the liberty of OTHER users who might be offended by materials produced by the previous party.
This is not something that I want to answer, especially since I do not have all the details. *Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
This is one of my more recent pet-peeves. (Since I shut down one of my websites for it.)
The Homepage that your parents warned you about was a website created over three years ago, to describe a character that I created in a chatroom at the time of the creation of the website.
Carlos, was his name, and he wore a trench coat. A Black one, yes. There was a page devoted to describing the trench coat.
When the Littleton thing hit, (It was a tuesday) that night, the Kansas City Star E-mailed me because thier investigative reporter was searching the net and found my page (listed as number 5 on an Altavista search for "Black Trench Coat Mafia.
It later moved up to number 3. (mind you, the rest of the sites listed were clothing stores.)
Wednesday Afternoon, the McAllen, Texas Monitor E-mailed me as asked me to write a story for them about the issue of young people and "The Trench Coat Mistique".
I do wear a trench coat IRL, and I explained to the news editor that I was in no way attached to these punks in Colorado, or this national organization of underground hoods.
What I say in the article, is that people always have attached an image to the trench coat, be it the mystery, the isolation, the machismo, whatever. But now, because of this incident, everyone is attaching "Death of Innocents" to that list.
I, personally, think that is unfair. Please don't label the trench coat, label the people who wore them in Colorado. *Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
*Caution: Story unfolding* Two weeks ago, a few of my geek friends and I caught a double feature at the the local movie theater (being geeks on a budget) we saw Entrapment (an excellent movie of a sneaky bastard Sean Conner - but a little too "cute" at the end) and the Matrix.
The one thing about the Matrix, that I first noticed was the use of hackers as the protagonists and the heroes of the plot, which is, of course, not the first time that this has occured. Secondly, as the audience watched as this onion of a plot was peeled away, layer by layer, I was very impressed at the immagination of the writers of this story. To take "reality" and twist it so that what was up is now down and...well.... if ya saw the movie, you know what I'm talking about. But to create that kind of setting, and work with it almost perfectly (*BaronCarlos DID notice a few inconsintences in the plot, but only a few, so he is not going to complain (this isn't Batman and Robin the Movie, or Armaggeddon). After the movie, as always, my geek squad and I talked about the thrilling series of stimmulation of senses that we just witness together. Of the three of us, we all agreed, it was a "Geek Movie" - There are two male opinions and one female opinion. Two Scientist Opinions and one Engineer Opinion.
We all agreed that it was made either by some very imaginative geeks, or a couple of guys on an acid trip (but looking at the "Techinical twist" that was put on things in this movie, they were either geeks or had a really goood geek techinical advisor.)
To say that the movie was enjoied by the entire parent population of geeks, I cannot personally say. I do know that the sample population enjoied it, for more reasons then that of Geek.
Maybe we're trying to define ourselve so enthusiasticly, that we cannot see that there isn't an adequate definition out there?
Just like science, nothing is definable, there will always be error.
Two things. That the speed of light is constant (which I have concerns that it is not (Hey it can be turned, twistes and brought to a halt by massive objects.) And that the Theory of Gravity is Correct. (I refer the reader to an interesting article in the March 1996 issue of Discover.
The article illustrates that the Gravitational Constant ("Big G") is not reliable at all. In fact, some scientists claim to not know how Gravity Works at all.
So take all this with a grain of salt.
(BaronCarlos is an Astrophysics Major at the University of Arizona.) *Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
*BaronCarlos thought that George Lucas didn't want type cast actors playing the roles of his Saga/Drama.* Leo, is just that, a type cast punk. Me thinks that this is a viscious rumor in the wake of the premier of the Phantom Menace.
And, someone correct me if I'm wrong, The Second feature is already in development. Correct? *Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
Hello, My Name is BaronCarlos, and I'm a closet Trekkie. *Crowd responds "Hi Carlos!"*
I'm not here to disagree. Jon you make some great points, and you are completely right. But this is the way that I see it: There ARE two different sides to Star Wars and Star Trek. (This is very well illustrated in the lifestyles of my roommate and I since I prefer Trek over Wars and he prefers Wars over Trek. We both appreciate the other genre, know the characters, and experience the same magic when we watch each genre, but our favorites differ.) My Roommate is an Engineer, I am a Scientist. (That could be the difference here, but let me explain further.) I explained above that I was a closet Trekkie, which is also true, I do not attend conventions, I know SOME Klingon (but only so I can curse in a really mean sounding language and scare lots of unsuspecting people.), and I like to learn and understand the technology and inne workings of the StarTrek Universe. (I have read the Star Trek Encyclopedia and the Technical Guide to the Enterprise D.) My Engineer Roommate likes to argue, "who would win? The Starship Enterprise vs a Star Destroyer?" I ammusingly respond, "The Enterprise, The Star Destroyer cannot break lightspeed, and only has blasters for weapons." My Engineer roommate is a classic Wars fan (even though he was born after 1976 and only saw Jedi in the theater, while I saw all the movies in the theater and remember them.) I think the "magic" of Star Wars is the rudimentary conflict that engulfs the entire saga. The battle of rebels versus a tyranical empire, that parrallels the even more fundamental conflict of the light and dark side of the force, and the meanacing character of Darth Vader at the center of it all.
To me, the draw of Star Trek was hope. Trek was something closer to home, a dream of mankind reaching and mastering the stars. (And since I am an Astronomer, this was an appealing dream to me), while Star Wars was a story about a time long ago, and a galaxy far away. Trek was humans, doing human things, with human abilities and human technology. Star Wars was humanoids doing extrodinary inhuman things (ie. the Force) and using virtually non-human technology. (Yeah, an argument could be mdae that a lightsaber and a Warp Engine are pretty far out there. And I agree, but hey, it's all Sci-Fi/Fantasy isn't it?)
So in this fan's eyes, Star Trek is/was for the intellectual fan who enjoied the aspects of future technology and science,while Star Wars is/was for the Fantasy and Dramatic Sci-Fi fan, who enjoies seeing a powerful story unfold before their eyes.
Whatever genre you like, go out and enjoy the magic for yourself. Don't let BaronCarlos tell you what to do. *Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
Fortunatly, I do not subscribe to AOHell, and KOLD is my least favorite local station. So I fortunatly missed this little fiasco. (I've already passed this little factoid to my friends at ANOTHER local station KVOA and let them play with it.)
The thing is, Tucson news is pretty lame, overall. There is no weather here to speak of. So we are the city where Meteorologists go to die. Traffic is slower then the weather. And news, is just hard to find. So it only makes sense that reporters and news anchors get excited over something like this.
But still, this is pretty bad, even for the press. *Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
Corporations like Oracle and IOmega provided much of that invention. Oracle was Big Blue's biggest competition in the initial haydays of the personal computer. Sure there was some "sneaky bastard" techniques being done, like the ROM chip fiasco, but all in all, the PC that you are using is a result of those early cutthroat tactics. *Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
Yes, it is a SLAP in the face of our esteemed father of the internet. Without him and his catch phrases of the Information SuperHighway, we would only have 26 websites on the planet. (Bill Clinton said so, so it HAS to be true!) *Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
These are the prequels. (There is a reason that IV, V, and VI came out first.) There will be no Han Solo running around blasting storm troopers, and probably a lot more drama then action. (I think The GREAT Lucas even said that the Prequels would be less exciting then the Star Wars we all grew up with.) I'm still going to live it and love it.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, "This is an issue of individual character."
In the short term, shallow view of things, certification WILL make a difference. In the long term, a certification program will only be a dreadnought of a civil program that will only impeede the progress of Computer Science, or Science and Engineering in general.
The way I see it, (And I'm just a lowly geek on the food chain) it's a pandora's box of External Govornment. And as I've illustrated in other responses to other articles, External Government tends to take away the liberties of the Individual, in order to control the individual's lack of self-government.
In otherwords. We DEFINATLY need a certification program, IF (and only IF) there is a lack of integrity in programmers, coders, etc.
Personnally, I would say no. This Y2K issue is a poor example of a lack of integrity in the Computer Science community, since it was "created" well before the PC revolution.
The article does make good points about the internal government of the individual coders, corporations, and users in it's creedo. But the enforcement of that creedo is something that does not belong in an External Sphere. It belongs in the economics of a competative environment. Good code yields good results. Bad code yields nothing, except a waste of time.
Thank you, *Carlos gets off his soapbox, again.* *Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
Essential rule in this viewpoint: The more user friendly a system/program/operating system is, the less it can do.
Microsoft Windows and Macintosh Operating Systems are VERY User Friendly.
Until recent years, the computer industry has been a "Members Only" club. Only the people who knew a good amount of computers could use one, let alone have one in their home.
Then the computer was simplified and made to be more friendlier, in a marketing scheme designed to appeal to a wider demographic range. This was done at the expense of the functionality.
"Take away a few minor liberties and replace those subroutines with automated functions and the omputer will be an easier device, and a useful tool to the common man."
Some people just go to far.
The main gripe with Windows and Macintosh, today, is it's complete lack of ability to satisfy a "Hard Core" computer user. And with such a huge market share, the computer industry is now flooded in that direction. Everyone and their grandmother wants to have eternal access to the internet.
Unfortunatly, when these folks see how difficult a computer is, to actually use, and sees that Hardcore users are taking thier domain of computer functionality back, they panic, and think it's called re-inventing the wheel.
Not that it is any of my concern, but I have delved into issues like this before. I don't mean for this to be a sounding board for my own personal beliefs, but you might find this view interesting.
Historically, there has always been a balance between individual self-government, and Civil Govornment. Where complete and unadulterated liberty is represented in a society that is on the whole self-governed. (This is what the Libertarian Party aims for.) But back in the day of the formation of These United States of America, our Founding Fathers knew that mankind could not govern itself rightly, and required aditional external restrictions to provide a prosperous government. It is another form of the "Balance of Power", just as there is a balance between legislative, executive and judicial, there is a balance between the citizens and the civil sphere.
So there has always been some form of balance between an internal individual self-government, and an external Civil Govornment. When internal self-government is lacking, external Civil government is forced to compensate. And when internal government is strong, there is a lack of need for external government.
This should bring up a few questions:
Is America Self-Govorned enough "play nice" on the internet?
Are we getting what we deserve?
I don't have the answers to these questions, but I am seriously pondering why these laws needed to be instituted. What have we done to deserve it?
Slashdot Mirror
Do you, yourselves, see your organization on the grass root's level, where some believe the heart of political change must reside?
*Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
"Geeks, Where would you be without them?"
Is it possible for Quantum Tunnelling in this model? Or is this strictly a classical model with no Quantum bias?
Is there a method for sublimation? (Transition from Solid to Gas (ie. Carbon Dioxide.))
If traffic gets too "pressurized" (like in the center of a star) will the result of Gridlock be a black hole?
*Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
"Geeks, Where would you be without them?"
Tucson is the opposide, Winter time is the worst (all the vacationers come home.)
*Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
"Geeks, Where would you be without them?"
Besides, I think it's kind of refreshing, and very "nerdy" (in a good way). It reminds me of my College days.
*Falls back into the nostagia for a few more minutes.*
*Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
"Geeks, Where would you be without them?"
Senator Ernest Fritz Hollings (D SC)
Phone: (202) 224-4923
Fax: (202) 224-6121
As much as Congress hates the idea of a "Democracy" we do still have a voice. And with many Slashdotters there are here, we are a big voice.
I would also suggest that you call your representative/senator (since this will have to go through the house first.)
*Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
"Geeks, Where would you be without them?"
I would imagine that there is MORE of this going on then the BBC article suggests, especially the high profiles stuff like "first American in Space", "First American in Orbit", "First Man on the Moon", "First Manned Mission to Mars", and eventually "First Manned Mission out of the gravitational dominance of the Sun."
And believe me, those brave souls MUST be thinking, or even knowing, that they might not come back.
*Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
"Geeks, Where would you be without them?"
It brought a powerful episode of the Original Series to the Big Screen.
It has the best villan in ALL of the Star Trek Films (TOS and TNG.)
It has deception, intrigue, mystery, action, drama, peril, and loss. (It's not a happy ending.) (Very Empire-Strikes-Back-esque)
Kirk actually expresses some powerful emotional presence. "KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!"
I have found few ST films that equal the power of TWOK.
*Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
"Geeks, Where would you be without them?"
The Id: Kirk, the impatient, action-oriented captain, with needs wants and desires, often pulsated buy a child-like drive. He was a doer, thinking was the last option. But, like the rest of the society, it's the do-ers that get the job done.
The Super-Ego: Spock, the logical, rational, thinker, slow to act, cautious to interceede, and always ready to step back and observe the situation rationally, and clearly, without the distraction of a need to act prematurely.
And the Ego: McCoy, the character of conflict, always at some sort of odds with Kirk and Spock, making the two of them more like the other. McCoy would always try and help Kirk grow up, challenging him to think and react responsibly, and he always attempted to convince Spock to act more human and take chances.
It's sad to see part of that team pass on. In a sense, it's like having part of ourselves die. Those of us who have watched all the episodes over and over, and see the spectrum of personalitites in these three characters, it aches us to see that a key part is gone.
And who said that syndication is a bad thing?
Thanks for the memories DeForest.
You will no be forgotton,
You will be missed.
*Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
"Geeks, Where would you be without them?"
I enjoy typing them against Linux devices.
*Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
"Geeks, Where would you be without them?"
Whether you, the reader, believe me or not, is another story.
*Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
"Geeks, Where would you be without them?"
I geek code for several hours out of my day.
I am a Geek of Science.
I socialize with other high profile geeks.
In my area of the nation (US) the term "Geek" is actually a status symbol.
*Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
"Geeks, Where would you be without them?"
There is another huge cover-up in the Astrophysics Community. And it's story begins in the Mid 1970s.
Most of you have probably heard of Dark Matter, it's matter that cannot be seen, and has not been observed under any sort of scientific conditions, and you have heard of The Big Bang, (or a derivative of that thoery) where the Universe is a by product of a energy to matter reaction.
In the 1970s an Astronomer nammed William Tifft, studied the Extragalactic Geography of the numerous galaxies that can be seen in the Northern Hemisphere. His team found something very unusual: The Galaxies "Clustered" in an object called "the Great Wall" which was previously thought to be the Heculies and Coma Superclusters. This Great Wall is so amazingly huge that Modern Gravitational Thoery cannot explain it, because even over the extent of over 18 billion years, an object of this magnitude cannot have this form and structure. (Outside of thise wall, there is void in both the foreground and background). Science explains this with the use of Dark Matter (saying that the Universe consists of over 99% Dark Matter.
Another view is that we do not really know how Gravity works. For that I refer you to the June 1996 Issue of Discover where the article talks about how hard it is to determine, and reproduce, "Big G" the Gravitational Constant behind Newtons Law of Gravitation.
It was later discovered in 1990, by David Moo and Kitt Peak National Observatory, that this Great Wall was only one of several "walls" that surround us, each wall is the same thickness, the same desnity of individual galaxies, and the same seperation from the other walls surrounding it. Otherwise, this is a VERY PERIODIC structure, and cannot be explained by something as chaotic as a Big Bang.
Tifft also is a trail blazer in the dispute of the age of the universe and high velocity redshift in the determination of deep extragalactic observations. Not only that, he and his colleages have the experimental data to back up what they say.
The Astrophysical Journals, the most heralded Astronomy publication in the world, has put up an incredible fight to keep Tifft's papers from being published. And they could not dispute his findings (which is the only way to refuse to publicise a scientific paper) even though they reviewd each 13 times. But the ApJ wrote a very convenient disclaimer at the begining of the individual papers saying that they do not agree with the opinions of the author and that his results should be taken with a grain of salt. (Even though the paper was scientifically proven.)
Tifft is now a Professor of Astronomy at the University of Arizona, And the UNIVERSITY has silenced him from teaching these ideas in his Extragalactic Astronomy Course.
The question that arises is, WHY? Is not science an open minded insitution, eager to learn the truth of the universe around us?
Or is there another more commercial motive?
I suspect that there has been much investment of capital into the Big Bang Theory and Dark Matter theory, and in order to protect the continuation of that funding, certain ideas need to be put on the back burner.
I feel this is wrong. And just like the Cold Fusion debate, I am sceptical of what Science Community believes is the truth, and what they believe is convenient for themselves.
*Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
"Geeks, Where would you be without them?"
I scanned the articles, but I could not find the actual cause or the reason that Demon is moving in this way.
In my opinion, Demon has the right to do this, reguardless of free speech, this is "technically" their private property, they call the shots. (I Don't agree that they should be acting in this way.
What confuses me, is the question of "What prompted this fiasco?" I mean, defamation is defamation, it's only words, and usually does not have that much impact, and can be easily ignored, or subverted in a civilized vintage of retaliation.
Can anyone help me understand this issue better? It has made me curious.
Otherwise, it's an issue of "which is more important?"
The rights of the users to be able to say what they want, and how they want to say it.
Or the rights of the institution, to be able to control what happens in their insitutions, as to not be held in a compromising position, as well as the liberty of OTHER users who might be offended by materials produced by the previous party.
This is not something that I want to answer, especially since I do not have all the details.
*Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
"Geeks, Where would you be without them?"
The Homepage that your parents warned you about was a website created over three years ago, to describe a character that I created in a chatroom at the time of the creation of the website.
Carlos, was his name, and he wore a trench coat. A Black one, yes. There was a page devoted to describing the trench coat.
When the Littleton thing hit, (It was a tuesday) that night, the Kansas City Star E-mailed me because thier investigative reporter was searching the net and found my page (listed as number 5 on an Altavista search for "Black Trench Coat Mafia.
It later moved up to number 3. (mind you, the rest of the sites listed were clothing stores.)
Wednesday Afternoon, the McAllen, Texas Monitor E-mailed me as asked me to write a story for them about the issue of young people and "The Trench Coat Mistique".
I do wear a trench coat IRL, and I explained to the news editor that I was in no way attached to these punks in Colorado, or this national organization of underground hoods.
She didn't care, she wanted the story.
So I wrote one, a copy of it appears on the Old Trench Coat Page.
What I say in the article, is that people always have attached an image to the trench coat, be it the mystery, the isolation, the machismo, whatever. But now, because of this incident, everyone is attaching "Death of Innocents" to that list.
I, personally, think that is unfair.
Please don't label the trench coat, label the people who wore them in Colorado.
*Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
"Geeks, Where would you be without them?"
Two weeks ago, a few of my geek friends and I caught a double feature at the the local movie theater (being geeks on a budget) we saw Entrapment (an excellent movie of a sneaky bastard Sean Conner - but a little too "cute" at the end) and the Matrix.
The one thing about the Matrix, that I first noticed was the use of hackers as the protagonists and the heroes of the plot, which is, of course, not the first time that this has occured. Secondly, as the audience watched as this onion of a plot was peeled away, layer by layer, I was very impressed at the immagination of the writers of this story. To take "reality" and twist it so that what was up is now down and
But to create that kind of setting, and work with it almost perfectly (*BaronCarlos DID notice a few inconsintences in the plot, but only a few, so he is not going to complain (this isn't Batman and Robin the Movie, or Armaggeddon).
After the movie, as always, my geek squad and I talked about the thrilling series of stimmulation of senses that we just witness together.
Of the three of us, we all agreed, it was a "Geek Movie" - There are two male opinions and one female opinion. Two Scientist Opinions and one Engineer Opinion.
We all agreed that it was made either by some very imaginative geeks, or a couple of guys on an acid trip (but looking at the "Techinical twist" that was put on things in this movie, they were either geeks or had a really goood geek techinical advisor.)
To say that the movie was enjoied by the entire parent population of geeks, I cannot personally say. I do know that the sample population enjoied it, for more reasons then that of Geek.
Maybe we're trying to define ourselve so enthusiasticly, that we cannot see that there isn't an adequate definition out there?
Just like science, nothing is definable, there will always be error.
*Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
"Geeks, Where would you be without them?"
And that the Theory of Gravity is Correct. (I refer the reader to an interesting article in the March 1996 issue of Discover.
The article illustrates that the Gravitational Constant ("Big G") is not reliable at all. In fact, some scientists claim to not know how Gravity Works at all.
So take all this with a grain of salt.
(BaronCarlos is an Astrophysics Major at the University of Arizona.)
*Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
"Geeks, Where would you be without them?"
Leo, is just that, a type cast punk. Me thinks that this is a viscious rumor in the wake of the premier of the Phantom Menace.
And, someone correct me if I'm wrong, The Second feature is already in development. Correct?
*Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
"Geeks, Where would you be without them?"
*Crowd responds "Hi Carlos!"*
I'm not here to disagree. Jon you make some great points, and you are completely right.
But this is the way that I see it:
There ARE two different sides to Star Wars and Star Trek. (This is very well illustrated in the lifestyles of my roommate and I since I prefer Trek over Wars and he prefers Wars over Trek. We both appreciate the other genre, know the characters, and experience the same magic when we watch each genre, but our favorites differ.)
My Roommate is an Engineer, I am a Scientist. (That could be the difference here, but let me explain further.)
I explained above that I was a closet Trekkie, which is also true, I do not attend conventions, I know SOME Klingon (but only so I can curse in a really mean sounding language and scare lots of unsuspecting people.), and I like to learn and understand the technology and inne workings of the StarTrek Universe. (I have read the Star Trek Encyclopedia and the Technical Guide to the Enterprise D.)
My Engineer Roommate likes to argue, "who would win? The Starship Enterprise vs a Star Destroyer?"
I ammusingly respond, "The Enterprise, The Star Destroyer cannot break lightspeed, and only has blasters for weapons."
My Engineer roommate is a classic Wars fan (even though he was born after 1976 and only saw Jedi in the theater, while I saw all the movies in the theater and remember them.) I think the "magic" of Star Wars is the rudimentary conflict that engulfs the entire saga. The battle of rebels versus a tyranical empire, that parrallels the even more fundamental conflict of the light and dark side of the force, and the meanacing character of Darth Vader at the center of it all.
To me, the draw of Star Trek was hope. Trek was something closer to home, a dream of mankind reaching and mastering the stars. (And since I am an Astronomer, this was an appealing dream to me), while Star Wars was a story about a time long ago, and a galaxy far away. Trek was humans, doing human things, with human abilities and human technology. Star Wars was humanoids doing extrodinary inhuman things (ie. the Force) and using virtually non-human technology. (Yeah, an argument could be mdae that a lightsaber and a Warp Engine are pretty far out there. And I agree, but hey, it's all Sci-Fi/Fantasy isn't it?)
So in this fan's eyes, Star Trek is/was for the intellectual fan who enjoied the aspects of future technology and science,while Star Wars is/was for the Fantasy and Dramatic Sci-Fi fan, who enjoies seeing a powerful story unfold before their eyes.
Whatever genre you like, go out and enjoy the magic for yourself. Don't let BaronCarlos tell you what to do.
*Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
"Geeks, Where would you be without them?"
The thing is, Tucson news is pretty lame, overall.
There is no weather here to speak of. So we are the city where Meteorologists go to die.
Traffic is slower then the weather.
And news, is just hard to find.
So it only makes sense that reporters and news anchors get excited over something like this.
But still, this is pretty bad, even for the press.
*Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
"Geeks, Where would you be without them?"
Corporations like Oracle and IOmega provided much of that invention. Oracle was Big Blue's biggest competition in the initial haydays of the personal computer. Sure there was some "sneaky bastard" techniques being done, like the ROM chip fiasco, but all in all, the PC that you are using is a result of those early cutthroat tactics.
*Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
"Geeks, Where would you be without them?"
*Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
"Geeks, Where would you be without them?"
Enjoy!
*Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
"Geeks, Where would you be without them?"
In the short term, shallow view of things, certification WILL make a difference. In the long term, a certification program will only be a dreadnought of a civil program that will only impeede the progress of Computer Science, or Science and Engineering in general.
The way I see it, (And I'm just a lowly geek on the food chain) it's a pandora's box of External Govornment. And as I've illustrated in other responses to other articles, External Government tends to take away the liberties of the Individual, in order to control the individual's lack of self-government.
In otherwords. We DEFINATLY need a certification program, IF (and only IF) there is a lack of integrity in programmers, coders, etc.
Personnally, I would say no. This Y2K issue is a poor example of a lack of integrity in the Computer Science community, since it was "created" well before the PC revolution.
The article does make good points about the internal government of the individual coders, corporations, and users in it's creedo. But the enforcement of that creedo is something that does not belong in an External Sphere. It belongs in the economics of a competative environment. Good code yields good results. Bad code yields nothing, except a waste of time.
Thank you,
*Carlos gets off his soapbox, again.*
*Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
"Geeks, Where would you be without them?"
Microsoft Windows and Macintosh Operating Systems are VERY User Friendly.
Until recent years, the computer industry has been a "Members Only" club. Only the people who knew a good amount of computers could use one, let alone have one in their home.
Then the computer was simplified and made to be more friendlier, in a marketing scheme designed to appeal to a wider demographic range. This was done at the expense of the functionality.
"Take away a few minor liberties and replace those subroutines with automated functions and the omputer will be an easier device, and a useful tool to the common man."
Some people just go to far.
The main gripe with Windows and Macintosh, today, is it's complete lack of ability to satisfy a "Hard Core" computer user. And with such a huge market share, the computer industry is now flooded in that direction. Everyone and their grandmother wants to have eternal access to the internet.
Unfortunatly, when these folks see how difficult a computer is, to actually use, and sees that Hardcore users are taking thier domain of computer functionality back, they panic, and think it's called re-inventing the wheel.
To us, it is RESTORING PROGRESS.
Historically, there has always been a balance between individual self-government, and Civil Govornment. Where complete and unadulterated liberty is represented in a society that is on the whole self-governed. (This is what the Libertarian Party aims for.)
But back in the day of the formation of These United States of America, our Founding Fathers knew that mankind could not govern itself rightly, and required aditional external restrictions to provide a prosperous government.
It is another form of the "Balance of Power", just as there is a balance between legislative, executive and judicial, there is a balance between the citizens and the civil sphere.
So there has always been some form of balance between an internal individual self-government, and an external Civil Govornment. When internal self-government is lacking, external Civil government is forced to compensate. And when internal government is strong, there is a lack of need for external government.
This should bring up a few questions:
Is America Self-Govorned enough "play nice" on the internet?
Are we getting what we deserve?
I don't have the answers to these questions, but I am seriously pondering why these laws needed to be instituted. What have we done to deserve it?